JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. This appeal by the writ petitioner-appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition with the consent of the parties.
2. The appellant filed writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1670 of 2006 for quashing two communications dated 11.3.2006 and 13.3.2006 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Jamshedpur relating to the dispute with regard to control and management of the appellant-School, namely, Vig English School, Chhota Govindpur, Jamshedpur. The appellant-School was established and run by the Vig Educational Cultural Society which was registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860. The School was duly affiliated with the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination (I.C.S.E.) and presently about 2000 students are reading from Class Nursery to Standard-XII.
3. It appears that the above named Society was established under the Chairmanship of respondent No. 7 – Smt. Satyawati Vig, widow of N.N. Vig and it continued to be shown as such in the record of the Registration of the Society.
4. The dispute arose after creation of the State of Jharkhand when the Inspector General (Registration) notified that all such Societies registered in the undivided State of Bihar and whose offices fall within the newly created State of Jharkhand are required to obtain their registration from the State of Jharkhand. The writ petition was filed by Mr. Wendell Fredrick Alberts as Secretary of the School claiming himself to be the duly elected Secretary of the Society in the fresh election of the office bearers of the Society on 4.12.2005. On the other hand, Smt. Satyawati Vig (respondent No. 7) claimed to be the President of the Society from its very inception. Both the groups applied to the Inspector General (Registration) for grant of fresh registration of the Society. Appellant’s case was that on 6.3.2003 allegation was made that respondent No. 7 had taken huge amount from the School. Because dispute arose between the parties, some orders were passed by the Executive Magistrate. The appellant challenged those orders.
5. From perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that in course of hearing of the writ petition, learned Counsel appearing for the parties agreed for passing a consent order and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by passing the following orders:
After hearing the parties for some time, learned Counsel appearing for the parties agreed for the following consent order.
i. Parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration of their status of the real Managing Committee of the society and such other relief, as they may deem appropriate.
ii. Parties shall maintains status quo as on 07thof September, 2006 till any of the parties is able to seek appropriate direction including interim direction from the competent Civil Court with regard to the control and the management of the Society-School.
iii. The present members who claim to be the Office bearers of the Society and are in control of the School shall maintain a true and proper account of the income, receipts and expenditure of the society/school. They will file a quarterly statement of receipts/expenditure of the Income of the Society/School periodically with the District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, who will maintain the accounts and such statements in his Office under his supervision. The Controlling persons will also provide a copy of the Statement of Accounts to the other side simultaneously with the filing of the statements of the Accounts with the District Education Officer.
iv. The District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur will get the accounts audited through a Chartered Accountant at the expenses of the Society/School at the end of each financial year and the copies of the audit report shall be provided to both the groups. Both the sides shall have the right to file objections to the quarterly statements of the accounts. Such objections shall be forwarded to the Chartered Accountant for consideration and determining the genuineness of the income/expenditure.
This order shall remain in force, till any other directions issued by the competent civil court.
This consent order has been passed in the best interest of the students of the School without going into the question of maintainability of the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the above order along with all connected I.As.
6. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the writ petition was filed for quashing the orders dated 11.3.2006 and 13.3.2006 passed by the Executive Magistrate as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Executive Magistrate had no jurisdiction to interfere with the management and control of the School. Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant never consented and agreed for passing the impugned order. According to the learned Counsel, before the judgment was delivered, the writ petition was heard on 7th September, 2006. Learned Counsel for the appellant might have agreed for some consent order but on 13.9.2006 when the impugned order was passed, the counsel for the appellant resiled from the said consent.
7. Without entering into the question whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is to be termed as ‘consent order’, we are of the opinion that the actual dispute which exists between the parties is with regard to control and management of the School which is run by the Society. On the one hand, the appellant claims himself to be duly elected Office bearer of the Society and thereby entitled to run the School, whereas on the other hand, respondent No. 7 claims to be the real person to run the Society and the School. In such a situation, in our considered opinion, the writ court is not the appropriate forum for deciding the dispute between the parties. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly given liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration of their status and for resolving the controversy once for all.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
D.K. Sinha, J.
9. I agree.